advertisement
SABC
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Reddit

#SABC: Labour Court cannot rule over dismissal of journalists

The SABC has argued that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to rule over the dismissals of four of its eight journalists.

The public broadcaster’s legal team filed its responding affidavit to the court and Solidarity last night, in defense of the decision to axe Foeta Krige, Suna Venter, Krivani Pillay and Jacques Steenkamp.

In its affidavit, some of the SABC’s argument states the following:

It is submitted that the above Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction, to entertain this matter for more reasons than one:

6.1 First, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court as set out in the LRA [Labour Relations Act] is confined to finding that a dismissal is unfair, either substantively or procedurally. It does not extend to declaring a dismissal to e void and/or unlawful. The applicants have pegged their case on the unlawfulness rather than the unfairness of their dismissal.

6.2 Secondly and closely connected with the first point, is that once a dismissal is pronounced by the employer it takes effect. As already stated, the insititutions established in terms of the LRA including the above Honourable Court may the pronounce on the fairness or otherwise of the dismisaal and grant an appropriate remedy including reinstatement.

6.3 Thirdly, the mechanism provided by the LRA requires that, once dismissed, an employee should follow such mechanism which in this case obliges the employees to refer the matter to the CCMA for conciliation and thereafter arbitration before approaching the above Honourable Court.

6.4 It is further important to bring to the court’s attention that in an act of defiance, the Respondents [journalists] second to fifth took part in a protest march against their employer on or about the 1st of July 2016, which was led by SOS Support Public Broadcasting and one of their colleagues. (Ms Thandeka Gqubule), who is not a party to this action, was mentioned as an organiser of the said march.

Proceedings were meant to begin at 12:30pm today, but were delayed by a separate case that was being heard in the court and went over time.

advertisement

About Author

advertisement

Related News

advertisement